Have the developers acknowledged the FPS issues?

Abletudu

Abletudu
I am getting a fairly steady 30 FPS with a geforce gtx 960 and a i3-3320 on high settings. I am planning to upgrade to an i5-3550 soon, so I expect the FPS will increase then.
 

Ethelind

E
Fps will improve simply by adding more scenery pieces. Using signs to colour walls vs proper recolourable ones adds another object to render. Want a differnt coloured roof. Better use a thouaand doors sunk together. When testing with a large heavy themed park using the pieces as intended the game stays playable upto about 8500 guests. Unplayable lag sets in about 10000 and I have to quit the park. When using the scenery pieces like some of the aforementioned youtubers I can have bad fps hits at less than 3000 guests. This is on a 4.5ghz quad core with just a geforece 960. As the game focuses more on simulation and less on photorealism it stands to reason that it would be the cpu and not the gpu hit by most demand. Itll be good to drive a demand for cpu upgrades for once.
 

-HH-

H
I am playing on an i7 5930K and a GTX 980 at 1440P on (LOW GRAPHICS SETTINGS) and I'm getting about 20-30fps in my park which granted has coasters but it isn't a cluttered park.

Does the game only use 1CPU core? I will look more into it when I get home but if it does I may be able to manually fix the issue.
 

aDOLPHINjoy18

aDOLPHINjoy18
according to msi afterburner the game will use all your cpu cores. The game also utilizes intels hyperthreading technology. I have a 6th gen intel core i7 6700k cpu with 4 cores and 8 threads and from msi afterburner it lists that i have 8 cpu cores on my cpu. Windows 10 task manager refers to it as 4 cores 8 logical processors. The 6th gen Intel core i7 6700k is a high end processor. It also has better performance than the amd fx 8350 processor.
 

TheMagicianThing

T
Skywaterbirdx16m said:
according to msi afterburner the game will use all your cpu cores. The game also utilizes intels hyperthreading technology. I have a 6th gen intel core i7 6700k cpu with 4 cores and 8 threads and from msi afterburner it lists that i have 8 cpu cores on my cpu. Windows 10 task manager refers to it as 4 cores 8 logical processors. The 6th gen Intel core i7 6700k is a high end processor. It also has better performance than the amd fx 8350 processor.
Click to expand...

the i7 6700k. and the fx 8350 can't really be compared that way though. the i7 uses a true hyper-threading and does not share resources across cores.
as for the fx 8350 uses clustered multi-thread and meaning that execution resources are shared between cores. per 2 cores the fx 8350 share one floating point unit. which is the reason for its abysmal single core performance compared to the intel counterpart.
and it doesn't help that windows treats it the intel way rather than what it was designed to be
[video=youtube;PgejkSWzvNs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgejkSWzvNs[/video] < explains it in a nutshell
 

aDOLPHINjoy18

aDOLPHINjoy18
I have noticed there has been a frame rate improvement since Alpha 2 came out. I have an AMD R9 390 and on 1920x1080 High settings, I get on average 29-42fps. Before Alpha 2 came out, it was like 21-36fps. I went with Intel as from my research, they make better quality processors. I've tried the game once with 10,000 people in it, and was able to get 11-22fps with it on 1920x1080 High settings. Since Frontier staff are participating here, I think they're fully aware that the game is not optimized yet until they role out the completed version Q4 2016.
 
Last edited:

Bubbliplop

Bubbliplop
I think for the games development stage it isn't too bad though the extreme CPU usage causes the frame rate to drop. I run PC at 3840x2160 at medium graphics setting, I then I get ~39-49 fps with a park with 2600 visitors.
When Frontier optimizes PC we'll be able to have parks with with several thousands of guests with a lot less to no fps drops compared to how the game is now.
For me the CPU utilization is at constant 75-82%. With even more guests the frame rate drops and with that the GPU usage and the CPU usage remains at 75-82%.
 
Last edited:

Jamz58

J
I built my first park (sandbox) and when I got to over 13,000 guests my FPS dropped down to 9 which became very annoying. I will say my sandbox is only about 70% full so good luck filling it up.

Out of curiosity I closed the park. The FPS is 40 with no guests. The park contains about 40 facilities, 60 shops and 60 attractions including all flat rides and 4 transportation rides. I do not theme extremely heavily. Most queues are green (70% or so) but not 100%. Most flat rides are next to each other so scenery affects 2 queues.

As my park filled back up I recorded the FPS: 0 guests = 40 FPS; 600 guests = 30 FPS; 2,000 = 25; 3,500 = 21; 6,000 = 17; 8,000 = 12; 10,000 = 11; 13,500 = 9. All data is at normal speed, 1920 x 1080 full screen and using Steams FPS counter. CPU usage is about 70% and Ram about 50%.
I hope they can improve this performance soon. It discouraging to spend all that time building a park and then it runs like crap. [sad]

My system:
W10 Home 64-bit
GIGABYTE GA-Z170X-UD5 Motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB SDRAM DDR4 2400
Core i7-6700K Skylake Quad-Core 4.0 GHz
SAMSUNG 840 EVO 1TB SATA III Solid State Drive
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 970 4GB
 

aDOLPHINjoy18

aDOLPHINjoy18
Jamz58 said:
I built my first park (sandbox) and when I got to over 13,000 guests my FPS dropped down to 9 which became very annoying. I will say my sandbox is only about 70% full so good luck filling it up.

Out of curiosity I closed the park. The FPS is 40 with no guests. The park contains about 40 facilities, 60 shops and 60 attractions including all flat rides and 4 transportation rides. I do not theme extremely heavily. Most queues are green (70% or so) but not 100%. Most flat rides are next to each other so scenery affects 2 queues.

As my park filled back up I recorded the FPS: 0 guests = 40 FPS; 600 guests = 30 FPS; 2,000 = 25; 3,500 = 21; 6,000 = 17; 8,000 = 12; 10,000 = 11; 13,500 = 9. All data is at normal speed, 1920 x 1080 full screen and using Steams FPS counter. CPU usage is about 70% and Ram about 50%.
I hope they can improve this performance soon. It discouraging to spend all that time building a park and then it runs like crap. [sad]

My system:
W10 Home 64-bit
GIGABYTE GA-Z170X-UD5 Motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB SDRAM DDR4 2400
Core i7-6700K Skylake Quad-Core 4.0 GHz
SAMSUNG 840 EVO 1TB SATA III Solid State Drive
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 970 4GB
Click to expand...

This game WILL test even high end hardware. Some modern games can be really demanding and there's not that much game developers can do. Coding, textures, AI, etc. Your GTX 970 passes the "minimum" requirements for this game, but not the "recommended" requirements. Frontier mentions a GTX 980 or AMD R9 380. Remember too the GTX 970 is a 4GB GPU, but.... only 3.5GB of it is fast memory, the remained 0.5GB is slow memory. The 970 also is not as good as a 980 or GTX 1080. My AMD R9 390 has a higher bandwidth (384GB/s) and a bigger 512-bit bus, than the 970. Otherwise I have the same processor, a 6th gen Skylake Intel Core i7-6700k.

I play on 1920x1080 High preset settings, full screen, with shadows on low, and water on ultra. I have 6,000 people in my park, about 25 rides in my park including 2 water rides, monorail transport ride with 6 stops, and MSI Afterburner says I'm achieving 30-39fps. I've had this game since April last year, when it was in Alpha. And can honestly say optimization is much better than what it was like in Alpha. In Alpha 3, I was hanging in at only 15-20fps. Intel has other CPU's with 6 cores 12 threads, but they have a slower base and turbo clock speed, than the i7-6700k which has a high 4Ghz base speed, 4.2Ghz turbo boost, and can be overclocked, 8MB cache, and is a quad core processor with 8 threads, not a mere dual core processor.

Everyone knows (or should know) if you have 10k+ people in your park, you are going to get really low fps. It's the same for Cities Skylines. Strictoaster and Silverret Youtubers mention if you add a lot of detail or detail which is not necessary, you are going to run into fps drops. Planet Coaster is not one of those COD games etc, where you can expect 60 or 120fps all the time.
 

cerpe

C
same problem I have a park with 10,000 people and have pocchissimi fps and the game becomes even slow down the settings
currently using a 5 k 4690 gtx 970 and 16 gb ram
 

Joël

Volunteer Moderator
Joël
I have done a test with Planet Coaster on my computer to see how many FPS I can get with a certain park and the conditions of that park.

My specs
CPU: Intel i7-6700K OC to 4.73 GHz
RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury 32 GB DDR4 2.666 MHz
GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 1060 ARMOR 6G OC to 1684 MHz base clock, 1899 MHz boost clock
Storage: SSD

Park used for my test
Disneyland Paris Inspired Park - Disney, made by Brad
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=797161455

Game settings
All graphic settings have been set to high/ultra


Test results

Park closed, rides closed, zero guests, daylight
CPU load 45%
GPU load 100%
FPS 24-25

Park closed, rides closed, zero guests, sunset and night
CPU load 45%
GPU load 100%
FPS 20

Park closed, rides testing, zero guests, daylight
CPU load 45%
GPU load 100%
FPS 24-25

Park open, rides open, 3,000 guests, daylight
CPU load 70%
GPU load 100%
FPS 24-25 (guests have zero impact on FPS)

Park open, rides open, 7,000 guests, daylight
CPU load 70%
GPU load 100%
FPS 23-24 (guests have -1 impact on FPS)
 

UniMag

U
Joël said:
I have done a test with Planet Coaster on my computer to see how many FPS I can get with a certain park and the conditions of that park.

My specs
CPU: Intel i7-6700K OC to 4.73 GHz
RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury 32 GB DDR4 2.666 MHz
GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 1060 ARMOR 6G OC to 1684 MHz base clock, 1899 MHz boost clock
Storage: SSD

Park used for my test
Disneyland Paris Inspired Park - Disney, made by Brad
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=797161455

Game settings
All graphic settings have been set to high/ultra


Test results

Park closed, rides closed, zero guests, daylight
CPU load 45%
GPU load 100%
FPS 24-25

Park closed, rides closed, zero guests, sunset and night
CPU load 45%
GPU load 100%
FPS 20

Park closed, rides testing, zero guests, daylight
CPU load 45%
GPU load 100%
FPS 24-25

Park open, rides open, 3,000 guests, daylight
CPU load 70%
GPU load 100%
FPS 24-25 (guests have zero impact on FPS)

Park open, rides open, 7,000 guests, daylight
CPU load 70%
GPU load 100%
FPS 23-24 (guests have -1 impact on FPS)
Click to expand...

Which 'said' park is that?

I would like to try it that's all
 

aDOLPHINjoy18

aDOLPHINjoy18
Everyone, I'm sure Frontier are aware of the frame rate / optimization etc situation. But be aware, this is a modern game. Gamers nowadays want more from games, better textures, graphics, AI, etc. And there's only so much game developers and your hardware, can do. This game is awesome! The graphics, IDEAS, and how well Frontier mingles with their community, they participate on this forum, this forum is well designed, and when you compare it to other game developers and games, this game rocks.

Frontier has made optimization improvements for sure between Alpha versions, Beta, and the full version of this game. But you can't expect to play this game well if your PC does not meet their official "Recommended" requirements, which are:

•OS: Windows 7 (SP1+)/8.1/10 64bit
•Processor: Intel i7-4770/AMD FX-8350
•Memory: 12 GB RAM
•Graphics: nVidia GTX 980 (4GB)/AMD R9 380 (4GB)
•DirectX: Version 11
•Storage: 8 GB available space

If your PC meets those requirements, you should be able to play it on 1920x1080 full screen, High preset. Just be aware if you add a tone of unnecessary detail/scenery, or shoot for 10k+ people, you are going to run into lag. Some games can bring even high end hardware, to it's knees. Just because you have high end hardware doesn't mean that hardware will excel at everything. Note a GTX 980 is better than a GTX 970, even though it may not be by a lot. But there must be a reason why Frontier did not pass a GTX 970 as "recommended" specs. "Recommended" specs is like, the recommended specs if you want to play this game on 1080p high settings. "minimum" requirements, is the bare minimum specs your computer needs to be able to run this game on low settings.
 

tyczj

T
So trying not to take this out of context but....

AndyC said:
I'm away again (yes, I've got a lot of holiday to use up - I worked pretty solidly for the last year on Planet Coaster, only taking a few days off), and the couple of days that I was in the office last week I only briefly got a chance to look at this park. On my work Xeon (which is basically an i7) with a GTX 770 with 16gb of RAM the entire park is GPU bound. Even as more guests come in it continue to be GPU bound, although eventually at I think about the 8k guests level it becomes bound by the D3D submission thread, at which point the framerate was hovering around the 15 - 20fps mark.

Now to talk about why lowering the graphics doesn't really increase the framerate. You've all got powerful gpus, and lowering grapihcal options will do things like reduce the texture memory usage (it'll avoid loading higher resolution textures, which is a big help on slower hardware, but doesn't really increase performance that much on high end cards), and reduce shader complexity a little (again, your cards will chew through this). What it doesn't enormously do is reduce the geometric complexity of the scene. A game like Planet Coaster submits vast amounts of geometry to be rendered (many times that of most titles - including "far better looking" titles like Battlefield / Call of Duty). This arises from two main issues - one is that it is very costly to calculate whether individual pieces are visible or not. We do standard frustum culling to remove objects that are outside the view, but more detailed occlusion culling is just too expensive to perform on hundreds of thousands of objects. Games with pre-authored environments are able to bake out occlusion data in advance, and end up doing dynamic calculations on very few "dynamic" objects. Everything in Planet Coaster is dynamic. The second is how the geometry is submitted. When dealing with other games, 3d meshes (the buildings, the ground, etc. - basically any "model" in the game) are authored in the most optimal way for rendering - buildings aren't built out of individual pieces, or if they are they are processed offline to produce a mesh with the lowest triangle count. Imagine a (vastly simplified case of a) textured wall - you can either render two triangles for the whole wall, or two triangles per brick. Planet Coaster has to deal with things "brick by brick". Also, each brick has to be "drawn" (as in we make a call on the cpu asking the GPU to assign specific textures, shaders, and geometry and then draw it. This is a vastly simplified case and hey, I'm not a graphics programmer! But I do know what we actually do when rendering a scene in Planet Coaster is vastly more complicated than this - we are doing a lot of tricks to minimise the cpu and gpu cost of all of this. But we can't work miracles - Planet Coaster is an expensive game to render, and despite out continued efforts to optimise it we're not seeing any giant areas for optimisation. And this is what optimisation means - it isn't just "make the game run faster", it's about finding areas that are particularly slow (be it by mistakes in code, weird edge cases or just things being used in ways we never imagined) and re-writing them to make them faster. Which we will continue to do, but I can't just load up a park like this and see something which is taking twice as long as it should do. We have extensively optimised Planet Coaster up until this point (for the past two years in fact).

I'll need to do more profiling in a development build to give you more details on what is going on. Not wanting to criticise the park (it's a fantastic recreation of Disneyland), but things like you've got mountains of rock scenery pieces rather than terrain sculpting - the sheer object count for this park is really working against it in terms of performance.

We are continuing to optimise Planet Coaster - thanks very much for providing us with these examples. My performance recommendation is always to minimise object counts wherever possible - terrain can be rendered much more efficiently than thousands of rocks.

Cheers

Andy
Click to expand...

https://forums.planetcoaster.com/sh...low-fps)/page7?p=166283&viewfull=1#post166283

Does not sound like much more can be done as far as improving fps
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom